Hi Steele,

You assert that " ..... if there were no other evidence available oral history is of itself evidentiary."

No, it isn't. On its own, it's no more than a story, and possibly very third-hand, having gone through many versions depending on the current political atmosphere. It may be true, or roughly true, but on its own, there is no evidence for it.

If there is any documentary evidence for the RPF story, then it should be presented. Otherwise, it is a charming, and politically loaded, story, in support of a Narrative. i.e. a story is rarely 'neutral', it is usually exploited to advance a Narrative. So of course, it should have some backing besides somebody's assertion. As the Romans said, 'Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis': an assertion without evidence or substance can be set aside without evidence; he who asserts must demonstrate.

Churlish or gullible ? I'll choose churlish.

Cheers,

Joe

When Mary Craig, the subject of RPF saw the film she's reported to have said, "That's no my story".

As to the rest, its just more of the 'look at me' generation. Someone creates a fictional work about an iconic location and because it fails to mention the history that others would prefer to discuss, they seek to delegitimise it.

Don't watch 'Roman Holiday' because it doesn't mention Christians killed in Rome. OMG 'An American in Paris' doesn't mention Caesar's conquest of the Parisii.

Dearesat Foxy,

That's a strange remark: "Oral histories whether in the form of diaries, tapes, et cetera play an important role."

Written accounts go some way towards evidence, especially if they can be cross-checked, triangulated, verified by other sources.

You move even further away from 'oral history' here: "Think of "The Diary of Anne Frank," "Bitter Harvest,"(Ukrainian famine), and other works."

Such dreadful events have been thoroughly corroborated, documented, accounted for, verified. What happened to Jewish people under the Nazis, or to the Ukrainian people under the Communists, is light years away from 'oral history'.

It's not just that evidence strengthens an assertion: for many assertions, certain forms of evidence SHOULD be readily available if the story had any truth in it. If it was a big enough story to come to the attention of newspapers, then it would be reported. I would suggest that the RPF story should have that sort of documentation, not to mention WA police, hotel, Rabbit Department records. The Moseley Royal Commission would have covered it in detail. Mrs Bennett, a communist and tireless worker for Aboriginal rights in WA from the twenties up until her death in 1961, would have got wind of it and hounded Neville with it.

There is a story here in SA, of an Aboriginal woman escaping from Kangaroo Island and swimming across Backstairs Passage with her baby on her back, to crawl exhausted up the nearest beach on the mainland and dying. But currents in Backstairs Passage would have taken her a hundred miles along the coast. Not to mention sharks having a go. So a striking, charming and tragic story. Interestingly, it could be a composite of many other stories: a child lost in the bush down that way; Aboriginal women being thrown into the sea; photographs of Aboriginal women with their babies on their backs; perhaps a body being found on a beach near Cape Jervis. Put it all together and bingo !

One lovely old bloke I knew claimed that that baby was his grandmother, therefore that he was not Ngarrindjeri but from Tasmania.

Meile,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

We had better be clear about what you are asserting here. Are you saying there is no evidence that they walked this distance or is it just that some of the aspects in the film were exaggerated? The book obviously contains a lot more information which does not coincide with a sizable part of the film but as i said that is part of the craft.

Hi Steele,

My fourth post, I think.

No, I'm saying that unless there is some strong evidence, certainly something better than an 'oral story', then there is no evidence that it happened at all. No evidence, when there should be some = no truth in the story.

No, I don't think, on the evidence, that the Rabbit-Proof Fence story happened. Spiffing movie though: that bastard Neville, those poor little girls.

I'll say it again: I don't think that the old lady lied, but that, after fifty or more years, the bits and pieces of different stories may have been brought together to form a composite story, which actually had no basis in fact.

Why the story in the first place ? Because the Narrative demands that there be evidence of the rejection of white society, and a craving to return to country away from whites and their influences. Anything which trends that way will be believed by people who believe the Narrative. It's a pity that evidence suggests the opposite: girls of 16 and 17 (young women really) who escaped from Moore River were invariably found in Perth, mainly on the waterfront at Fremantle, enjoying the bright lights of assimilation, and the company of big spenders.

All stories in the Conventional Aboriginal Narrative must conform to this sort of trend: evil whites committing all manner of unspeakable crimes, innocent Aboriginal people fleeing away, being driven off land, herded onto missions, deliberate spreading of disease, etc., etc. Massacres of course: I hope somebody, one day, does an archaeological dig at a supposed massacre site, just to demonstrate that they did indeed happen. I've been tempted, but I don't have the expertise, or the knees.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear loudmouth,

This is what Andrew Bolt (not someone I thought I would be quoting in this context) wrote of the film;

“It was 1931 and Molly Craig was just 14, when she and two of her younger cousins -- Daisy, 8, and Gracie, 11 -- were taken from an Aboriginal camp at Jigalong, in Western Australia's north, and sent to the Moore River Native Settlement, 2000km south. There these girls were to live with other ``half-castes'' and to go to school, learning skills to help them to adapt to non-Aboriginal society. But the girls fled after one night, and in an amazing nine-week epic walked home to Jigalong -- all but Gracie, that is, who was found by police at Wiluna. Craig's feat made the papers but was not written up in full until 1996, when her daughter, Doris Pilkington, who was herself raised at Moore River, wrote the book on which Noyce has based his film. BUT Noyce and his scriptwriter didn't stick to the facts Pilkington uncovered.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/rabbitproof-fence-how-the-film-lied/news-story/9837347e0bdbaf3395635be48580ede5?nk=13e4ad793ad2d02fcd57d8fad318865b-1488246860

So the story did indeed make the papers of the time and Bolt accepts “ the facts Pilkington uncovered”. His issue is with the depictions in the film.

He also speak of Molly as showing “extraordinary courage, endurance and willpower”.

Therefore my friend, when even someone like Bolt accepts the journey happened it kinda leaves you as the proverbial shag on the rock, and I repeat a rather churlish one at that.